The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

Oh, and I dont need things like Wikipedia to know background, especially on Roman Cotholic Saints.

7sm

Then you need to read your posts and start debating with some cogency. You certainly didn't seem to know much about the influence of Augustine, now, did you? Nor, apparently, did you know anything about the dating of the Marcion heresy to the second century.

You didn't miss my point with Marcion's use of Paul's letters...you dodged it...and are by all appearances covering for what seems to be a lack of familiarity with Ecclisiastical history. Your response to this of course would be a call for a "deffinition" (sic) of the word Christian, without addressing what I said.

When I mentioned that Arianism was a Christian tradition (and it was indeed quite popular in the west), you threw in a red herring by stating that Arianism denied the divinity of Jesus. Instead of addressing my point you steered away from it, and incorrectly. Arianism didn't deny the divinity of Jesus, but rather the notion of his eternal unbegotten nature and co-equal status with God.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

You're very quick to point out what you deem "faulty logic," and yet don't ever seem to get around specifically to pointing out to us the fallacies you claim exist.

Guessing from the penumbras and emanations of your posts (I borrowed that wonderful phrase...guess the source), I'm getting the sense you haven't quite the background in theology you've suggested. Given your inability to stay focused on an issue and your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself, it's tempting to simply ignore your posts and carry on with someone who has read up on the topic a tad more.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?

Thats exactly my point. Thank you.
Yet in this debate it is accepted as reasonable to label things as "christian" or "christianity" and expect everyone to accept it as a standard.

Then you need to read your posts and start debating with some cogency. You certainly didn't seem to know much about the influence of Augustine, now, did you? Nor, apparently, did you know anything about the dating of the Marcion heresy to the second century.

Um...am I missing something or are you? What did I not know about the influence of Augustine? I didn't claim to know anything about the dating of Marcion "heresy". In fact, I think I used words like "probably" and "could be". I assumed any rational person could see that as a suggestion. My point was not in what dates Marcion "heresy" existed, but that the connection of marcion "heresy" and "Christianity" proves very little...again however you ignore that point and go right to surface arguments.

Again your clouding the discussion with semantic arguemnts and surface issues. The point is that the arguement about Maricion "Heresy" (as you put it) was thin at best. Your continual dragging of it and grasping at straws to keep it alive isn't giving it any more value.

You didn't miss my point with Marcion's use of Paul's letters...you dodged it...and are by all appearances covering for what seems to be a lack of familiarity with Ecclisiastical history. Your response to this of course would be a call for a "deffinition" (sic) of the word Christian, without addressing what I said.

Haha, if you can't beat them, join them? Now your just simply repeating what I said about your post back to me. Original.
Your approval of my knowledge of history of any kind especially Ecclisiastical history is of no importance to me, or this discussion.

Your response to my original posts would of course be to jump on semantics and surface issues, without adressing what I said....seems my view about tight circles is forthcoming.

When I mentioned that Arianism was a Christian tradition (and it was indeed quite popular in the west), you threw in a red herring by stating that Arianism denied the divinity of Jesus. Instead of addressing my point you steered away from it, and incorrectly. Arianism didn't deny the divinity of Jesus, but rather the notion of his eternal unbegotten nature and co-equal status with God.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arianism.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm

Red Herring? You've got to be kidding? Use of terms doesn't make you any more correct. Do you understand what the word divinity means? Here, from your first link:

According to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and not quite divine.

:idunno:
Maybe the one needing background and research here isn't me?
I completely addressed your point, are you joking? You called Arianism a Christian "movement" which is incorrect. Your point falls apart when you falsly label your points. Again, the need for some basis of defining what we are refering to by "christian" is needed to have a honest debate here.

You're very quick to point out what you deem "faulty logic," and yet don't ever seem to get around specifically to pointing out to us the fallacies you claim exist.

It seems that without proper ammunition against valid points, one must quickly move to personal attacks? I'm sorry, I didn't use the big words you like so much, that make you feel so good? How about Appeal to Authority
That make you feel better?
Listen, your getting pretty wound up about topical issues that overt all of the points of this thread, yours or mine. If valid points are to be left unanswered, this thread is boring. LEts discuss less about each others background and more about the topics nad points of this thread, eh?

Guessing from the penumbras and emanations of your posts (I borrowed that wonderful phrase...guess the source), I'm getting the sense you haven't quite the background in theology you've suggested. Given your inability to stay focused on an issue and your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself, it's tempting to simply ignore your posts and carry on with someone who has read up on the topic a tad more.

Once again, attack the person who brings up points you can't argue logically. It seems you feel heritic and yourself are authorites here nad everyone else is pretty infintile in their understanding.....simply not the case. Again, your belief of my background means nothing to me, your oversion of my points however does prove some interesting things. Ignore my posts if you like, its obvious you can't agrue them. I've stayed very focused on many issues, one of which is the obvious repulsion to any hint of a set deffinition for the sake of this debate. Now your falling into "I know you are but what am I"?

your tendency to play lip service to rhetorical rules while ignoring them yourself

You just jumped on me for speaking of faults without defining them and yet you do the same thing? How can this be honest debate?

Ok look, you disagree with me, but so far have only shown your willingness to ignore logical debate in prefrence to personal attacks and topical issues. If you would like to address my points, we could still have some great discussion.

Bottom line is you have diverted off topic. You are now arguing against my knowledge and not the topic at hand....somehow it allways seems to go that way when you are presented with points that have some "meat" to them.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

a set definition of 'christian'? are you kidding!?

The Mormons think they're Christian. Most mainstream Christians disagree.

 

[Marginal]

I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?

Yes, please end all the hair-pulling, and tell us what a "True Christian" is. It's getting tiresome to read you arguing agaisnt all views on Christianity using this unstated ideal as your fulcrum.

Reminds me of the "No true Scottsman..." fallacy.

Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself? You can’t use words like “Most Likely” as we may disagree on what is likely or not.

The Hellinistic influence on Christianity's development is well supported in historical circles. It's also demonstrated within the Bible itself as the afterlife in the early books of the OT varies quite a bit. (When you die, you're just an uncomfortable spirit stuck under the earth, your relatives put out food etc to keep you from bugging them etc.) Not sure how this discredits the NT other than it points out that it wasn't clearly defined. Biblical scholars tend to agree that the vision of the afterlife has been a moving target over the years, and it has shifted considerably after being influenced by other cultures.

Not to interrupt the argument you're having, but it is worth pointing out that these conclusions aren't just Heretic's opinions. There is a large body of work supporting, (and likely fueling) his claims.

Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ? Personally I haven’t seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly? Again, we are taking a literal hard label of Christians instead of realizing that Christians as a whole disagree with each other probably more than with those not claiming Christianity.

It's largely accomplished through close reading of the texts, cross-comparison between contemporary, active myths and researching the historical contexts they arose in. When you have a concept speficially described one way in an early book, and then in a very different way in a later book, it's not just happening because God dictated a rewrite.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

here are some comparisons taken from various pages......i have neither the time nor patience to type in quoted text from books.
the entries from the sites will be in quotes with a link, if you so desire to read some of it yourself.

taken from: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
"Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun"

"He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles."

"Mithra was called "the good shepherd,” "the way, the truth and the light,” “redeemer,” “savior,” “Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb."

"Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

"The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ."

"In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts."

osiris-dionysus-jesus: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm

"Conception: God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.

Birth: He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals. One early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave.
His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens.

Ministry: At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town.
His followers were born-again through baptism in water.
He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
He had 12 disciples.
He was accused of licentious behavior.

Execution, resurrection, etc: He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1
He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
After death, he descended into hell.
On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
He later ascended to heaven.

His titles: God made flesh.
Savior of the world.
Son of God.

Beliefs about the God-man: He is "God made man," and equal to the Father.
He will return in the last days.
He will judge the human race at that time.
Humans are separated from God by original sin. The god-man's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin.


All of the Pagan myths had been circulating for centuries before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). It is obvious that if any copying occurred, it was the followers of Jesus incorporating into his biography the myths and legends of Osiris-Dionysus, not vice-versa."

for some early christians, this was looked upon as "diabolical mimicry".
satans attempts at discrediting jesus by making him look like a copycat saviour by planting stories through time that resembled or appeared outright as a copy of his "life"

im sure heretic has much more to add to this.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

i have a stupid question
which probably shouldnt be asked here
but i'll ask anyway
what's hell in the christian belief?

I think that, in this day and age, it'd be better to ask what's the common denominator between the myriad christian beliefs. There are many of them, they agree on most things yet disagree on a number of things, there's really no greater proof for any one over the others, and they each insist that theirs alone is absolutely right; all of this makes deciding a single correct one impossible.

If I had to venture a guess, the common factors are a belief in a singular higher power, a fallen state of humankind, and a sacrifice on the part of the creator to give mankind a chance at redemption. All other details such as whether Jesus was God's son, baptism's necessity, the trinity, etc., all make up the myriad clashing points. However, I'm sure numerous other posters will make much better calls on the common denominator than I could.

and if everybody is going to be forgiven why does hell exist?

The official stance is that hell is the spiritual condition of separation from God caused by not accepting forgiveness. Personally, I think hell's just a way to get the good churchgoers to pay their tithings every Sunday.

and if not everybody is going to be forgiven why did Jesus sacrifice himself for everybody to be forgiven?

Ask your local parisioner(sp). Actually, ask a few of them, from different denominations...the results may be cummulatively illuminating.

 

[Ray]

The Mormons think they're Christian. Most mainstream Christians disagree.

I am a "Mormon" and I am a Christian.

 

[heretic888]

I don't really have time right now to do justice to all of 7starmantis's comments (nor Steve's subsequent defense of my positions), so that'll have to wait until I get out of class.

However, I did want to make a quick clarification before I head out:

Dionysius the Areopagite and Dionysus (Bacchus) the Wine God are not the same entity!! Don't confuse the two merely because their names are similar.

St. Dionysius is a canonized saint of the Roman Catholic Church, is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as a co-worker of Paul, and is credited for authoring a number of works influential to Christian mysticism such as The Letters and On The Divine Names.

Incidentally, it is generally believed that the works attributed to Dionysius were actually the product of an anonymous 6th century neo-Platonist who used 'Dionysius the Areopagite' as a pseudonymn. Regardless of their origins, the works are held in high regard by the Church and were highly influential on all later Christian mysticism.

According to Adolf van Harnack, for Dionysius "the historical Chist is a symbol of the universal purifying and santifying activity of the Logos and little more". Dionysius urges his readers to have "a communion with Jesus who is transcendent Consciousness" (The Eccliastical Hierarchy).

Dionysius wrote there were two Christian gospels, the exoteric teaching many are familiar with and an esoteric teaching which is "symbolic and presupposes initiation" and "must never be divulged to the uninitiated" (On The Divine Names). He also speaks of the "divine enlightenment into which we have been initiated by the secret tradition of our inspired teachers". He also distinguished between an exoteric and esoteric interpretation of the Bible itself:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common mulititude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent" (The Letters).

Dionysius describes God as "the centre shared by all the radii" (On The Divine Names). He also writes, "If we want to truly understand God we have to go beyond all names and attributes. He is both God and not-God" (On Divine Names) and, "It is beyond every limitation and also beyond every denial" (The Mystical Theology). He also states that, "the pure, absolute, and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling darkness of the secret silence" and wants his readers to enter "the mysterious darkenss of unknowing" where they will "transcend consciousness by knowing nothing" (The Mystical Theology), ideas which had a clear influence on St. John of the Cross in later centuries.

It should also be noted that these general ideas were common among individuals like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Boethius, and even Augustine (to an extant) --- as well as later Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Genoa, Jacob Boehme, and so on.

Dionyus, by contrast, was the Two-Faced God of Wine.

Laterz.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

here's an interesting link.... http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/homemake/lewsdion.htm

and another..... http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

i encourage you to read these pages in their entirety.
i find the 2nd one especially funny in the conclusion where the author states, "In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did."

it seems that even a literalist christian has his doubts by even making a statement such as this at the end of an article that damns the heretics for believing that christianity is based on pagan teachings. furthermore, the justification of his own belief by saying that it would be even more incredible had he not been real.
how does that make it more incredible?
incredible in the fact that people took inner mystery teachings as real history?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Dionyus, by contrast, was the Two-Faced God of Wine.

By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.

I think Arnisador and Ray's posts are telling in that it serves little purpose to try and define Christianity. We could never come up with a consensus. I would recognize Mormonism as a form of Christianity (and I suspect Arnisador would too), along with those earlier apocolyptic Jewish movements that recognized Jesus as the Messiah without necessarily recognizing him as divine. As I've said I consider the heresies of Marcionism and Arianism to be forms of Christianity...as well as other heresies.

Some years ago I had a debate with an Evangelical who stated that violence and anti-semitism were not traits of a "true" Christian. He then went on later in the debate to use the works of some noted anti-semites. I'll grant he didn't know of their anti-semitism. Still, it illustrates that any time one attempts to define Christianity they skate on thin ice, and will quickly come to find someone, somewhere, who doesn't accept the definition.


Regards,



Steve

 

[RandomPhantom700]

By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.

:rofl:

 

[7starmantis]

Yes, please end all the hair-pulling, and tell us what a "True Christian" is. It's getting tiresome to read you arguing agaisnt all views on Christianity using this unstated ideal as your fulcrum.

Reminds me of the "No true Scottsman..." fallacy.

Once again the actual point was ignored for a much easier bend of the arguement. It would be much better for your argument to actually read my posts. I didn't say I or anyone else even has a deffinition of a "True Christian". Your implication is pretty obvious and incorrect. I'm not, nor have I ever, saying we need to definition "True Christian", as if implicating some intolerance or arrogance of beliefs. What I am saying (and its pretty obvious to most reasonable adults) is that you cannot argue or debate with differing premises. An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). The premis must be defined and accepted by both sides to hold merrit. In this debate the term "Christian" is being used very differently. As you can allready see we have a mormon on the thread who is a Christian, but there are millions of "christians" who would disagree with his/her being a Christian. How can we honestly debate with the wide margin the term is defined as? Unless of course this thread is less about true sound debate and just a place to inflate fallacious opinions.

The Hellinistic influence on Christianity's development is well supported in historical circles. It's also demonstrated within the Bible itself as the afterlife in the early books of the OT varies quite a bit. (When you die, you're just an uncomfortable spirit stuck under the earth, your relatives put out food etc to keep you from bugging them etc.) Not sure how this discredits the NT other than it points out that it wasn't clearly defined. Biblical scholars tend to agree that the vision of the afterlife has been a moving target over the years, and it has shifted considerably after being influenced by other cultures.

Would you mind outlining your belief of the afterlife's variance in OT books? Complete with scriptures refrencing this from more than one chapter of one book? Speaking of fallicies....

Biblical scholars tend to agree

What scholars? How many scholars? Scholars from what religion, with what education? Again, your premis is incorrect....to say this particular scholar agrees is one thing, but to say scholars agree is not only ambiguous but quite unprovable. Again, we are using different premises to debate. Your saying its a moving target that has shifted considerably by influence from cultures. My deffinition of Christianity for this thread comes from the bible. I may be mistaken but I thought the name of this thread was The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight. So, taking the biblical deffinition of Christianity, the subject of hell is quite steadfast....at least within the confines of the bible.

Not to interrupt the argument you're having, but it is worth pointing out that these conclusions aren't just Heretic's opinions. There is a large body of work supporting, (and likely fueling) his claims.

:idunno: I'm confused, what does this have to do with this debate? Wether his views are his own or shared by millions doesn't negate the points I've made that still go unanswered. It would be much more fruitfull to have my points actually proven wrong rather than my background or my alleged fallacies attacked.

It's largely accomplished through close reading of the texts, cross-comparison between contemporary, active myths and researching the historical contexts they arose in. When you have a concept speficially described one way in an early book, and then in a very different way in a later book, it's not just happening because God dictated a rewrite.

Again, staying within the confines of this thread (the bible) your point is invalid. The bible defines itself as the authority and only true words of God....to refrence or compare with other texts, writings, or myths is simply out of the context of our debate. Again, a set definition for the sake of this one debate is needed. For Example: The mormons, the catholic issue, Jehova's Witness, 7th Day Adventist, etc. Are these all grouped under the term "Christian"? There are many "Christians" who would not agree. So imagine if you will that you define Christian as only baptists, I define it as anyone who believes in a higher power....how could we honestly hold a discussion?

I don't really have time right now to do justice to all of 7starmantis's comments (nor Steve's subsequent defense of my positions), so that'll have to wait until I get out of class.

Your post is informative, but I'm missing your point.

any time one attempts to define Christianity they skate on thin ice, and will quickly come to find someone, somewhere, who doesn't accept the definition.

I'm not asking for an officially recognized set definition of "Christian" but a local agreement for the sake of this discussion. Without it this thread falls to nothing more than opinions and beliefs. Circular argument is not my idea of fun or debate.

7sm

 

[tradrockrat]

By contrast, in my younger days I was the ****-faced God of beer.


Steve

AT LAST! A universal TRUTH!

:drinkbeer

:rofl:

 

[tradrockrat]

I'm not asking for an officially recognized set definition of "Christian" but a local agreement for the sake of this discussion. Without it this thread falls to nothing more than opinions and beliefs. Circular argument is not my idea of fun or debate.

7sm

If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of "Christian" is....



.... drumroll please....


Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of "Christian" is....



.... drumroll please....


Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the historical figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?

i would debate the use of the word historical......i would have that in quotes

 

[hardheadjarhead]

If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of "Christian" is....



.... drumroll please....


Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the historical figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?

Ah...BUT...uh...er. Okay. That's a good one.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of "Christian" is....



.... drumroll please....


Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?

My bad, I thought I had stated my position. ACtually your deffinition would be more for "Christianity" than a "Christian". So allow me to elaborate my position. As I said, this thread is defined as "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight" - correct?
So I would assume a more biblical deffinition would be used, just to keep in context with the thread.

In which case something more along these lines: A person who believes that Jesus Christ was the one and only son of God, who died on the cross, rose again, and paid the punishment for mankinds sins.

I admit many other deffinitions are accepted and used around the world, but this particular thread was started about the Bible, not other religious texts or myths. In fact, my own deffinition of a Christian differs a bit, but for the sake of staying on topic, I would say this deffinition should be accepted.

Now, let the flames begin! (No pun intended)

7sm

 

[Marginal]

So Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian?

 

[arnisador]

I am a "Mormon" and I am a Christian.

I wasn't taking a position on the matter--just making an observation. We have Mormon friends who have this problem a lot. They were excluded from the local Christian homeschooling group, for example, on the grounds that their belief in a prophet after Jesus made them non-Christians in the same way as for Muslims.

 

[arnisador]

Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

I'm more-or-less OK with this. I do agree that Christianity includes more than just the Catholic Church and its later offshoots, and I consider Mormons to be Christians (though I understand the other argument on that).